I have had that since day one. I used to have normal Vanced. But it has stopped working and I wanted.to figure out ReVanced. But I have not succeeded so far
If the question asked was “do you agree to the contract?” and the farmer answered “👍”, then yeah I can see it. But if the question asked was “have you received the contract?”, then this ruling is bullshit. Unfortunately the article doesn’t have enough information either way.
Apparently the message was an image of the contract and “please confirm flax contract”. Seems like the most likely interpretation of the 👍 is agreeing to the contract, not confirming receipt.
Exactly. But I think the farmer actually did want to agree and lock in the price of the flax.
Only reason they were looking for a way out was because flax had skyrocketed and they wanted to sell to someone else.
Three times prior they replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”, and then delivered the flax per the contract. It was only when the price went up they wanted to say they were not agreeing to it.
In either case the judge was pretty specific that this was not a precedent for the thumbs up emoji, but just that in this particular case it sure looked like consent based on past actions.
Wow this article on this subject has the least info. And the judge did not rule that it is always the case that a thumbs up would be binding, just that the context in this case it was.
The other party sent over the contract with he text: “Please confirm flax contract.” They then responded with thumbs up.
3 times prior to this, this exact same exchange happened. In each of these times the farmer replied with “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.”. After which in all 3 instances the farmer then delivered the flax.
In this particular case the farmer replied with thumbs up. Then after 3 months the price of flax skyrocketed. And of course the farmer now wants a better price.
In this case the three prior contracts being agreed to with only a “Looks good,” “Ok” and “Yup.” and then being delivered seem to point that a thumbs up is pretty much along those lines.
Oh here is a version of the article that has a little more detail:
Just kind of dawned on me while looking at the number, Reddit’s licensing deal with Google is valued at $60 million per year. That’s really not very much money at all, considering the amount of data Reddit has and continues to accumulate. And chump change for Google, no doubt. Reveals how little leverage Reddit actually has at this point. This was their flagship deal, and the best they could get was $60mil per year.
Also puts the API fiasco in a new light. “Look, we need to charge for API calls, because we need to restrict public access to data as a precondition of selling all your shit in a few months to Google, for the financial equivalent of a cup of coffee.”
And more importantly, any indication of impending regulatory action tends to spook away investors who might not want to be on the hook for fines and forced changes to the business model that affect profitability. Yet another staple in the rotting cardboard casket of Huffman’s favorite piggy bank.
Yet another staple in the rotting cardboard casket of greedy little pig boy’s favorite piggy bank.
FTFY.
He also 110% deserves to have his darling little piggy bank IPO ruined after the bullshit, lack of communication, and steamrolling pulled with the API fiasco.
I was gonna say, the Internet wouldn’t be what it is today without those so-called open source hackers. They’re the giants that Google and all the rest are standing on the shoulders of.
if they sold DVDs of Netflix’s shows that would actually be pretty nice, but I doubt they would be OK with allowing anyone to actually own their media.
engadget.com
Top